Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I want to ask the Minister about subsection (2). The explanatory notes say:

''It is currently anticipated that regulations will impose a limit of 20 school travel schemes in England.''

Will the Minister tell us why the Government feel that it is necessary to impose such a limit on the number of school travel schemes? There are a couple of explanations for that. The first relates to the cost to public funds, but that is surely an argument for limiting the amount of taxpayer subsidy that can be given under the Bill, which it is not included in the Clause and is not a reason for reducing or limiting the number of schemes. The only rational explanation for including this centralising control power is because the Government want to control the whole process through rationing. As you know, Mr. O'Brien, that is the preferred socialist method of control, which in turn leads to queuing and can be linked to the ability of the Government to allow its own pet local authorities to jump the queue. That is what this limit is about, and it is the only reason for the inclusion of subsection (2).

Some school travel schemes would not need to be expensive. For example, it would not cost so much to have staggered school starting and finish times. Some

schemes could result in the generation of additional revenue. A local authority, for example, might wish to introduce a radical travel plan including the power to charge parents of children living in the 3-mile limit, but not charge those who live further from the school than that. Giving children access to a bus provided for school transport would prevent them travelling to school by car. Such a scheme would give additional income to the local education authority and would not impose any costs.

Why should those sort of imaginative schemes be limited by number? Surely the important thing is to ensure that all the proposed travel schemes are of sufficient quality to merit acceptance by the Government. I hope that the Minister will accept that by including subsection (2) the Government are relying again—as so often in the past—on patronage and favouritism.

The stand part debate gives me the opportunity to draw the Committee's attention to something that I hope could go into the piloting of the new provisions, especially under subsection (3), which says:

''Power to make regulations under subsection (1) is exercisable by statutory instrument.''

I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider ensuring sufficient protection to avoid overcrowding. I mentioned that earlier in Committee, and I am grateful to the Clerk, officials and Ministers with whom I have had the opportunity to discuss the subject.

My main concern is about what is known as the three-for-two rule. I, of course, would like that rule abolished in all cases. The issue has come to my attention because of the situation in my Constituency. I am talking about service buses—not contracted buses—such as the No. 69, which goes from Chepstow to Monmouth. On reaching the village of Llandogo, it used to have a number of passengers on board. Then, it would take on 40 to 50 pupils, and then some more passengers. Such buses were particularly overcrowded, and the seating capacity of the bus on any particular day determined the level of overcrowding, which was sometimes gross; I have been on the buses in that situation.

My main concern is that the local authority entered into contracts with the bus operator—at the time, it was Stagecoach—that almost assumed that there would be overcrowding, or institutionalised overcrowding, as buses call it, because of the company's ability to take advantage of the three-for-two concession. I understand that the rule goes back to the Education Act 1944 but, more importantly, it is also in the Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 1984, which say—this is mainly in relation to the number of seated passengers—that,

''subject to sub-paragraph (a) above, three seated children each of whom is under 14 years of age and none of whom are occupying a seat provided with a seat belt shall count as two passengers.''

So three under-14s can sit on a double seat. That means that a bus with 52 seats could technically take 52 plus 26 passengers, if they were all under 14—and not under 15, as I told the Committee on Tuesday.

How is that rule policed in practice?

Well, it is certainly policed by the parents of the children of Llandogo. The considerable representations that I made to my local authority meant that eventually the situation was changed. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, because there was no sort of approval to check whether pupils who happened to sit on overcrowded buses were under 14. In many cases it is likely that there would have been one under-14 and a couple of over-14s sitting on the same double seat.

As parents point out, children are heavier than they were in 1944. They are bigger, and are more likely to carry more equipment to school. I saw pupils carrying their school bag—some of them were still carrying satchels—and a kit bag, trombone case or violin case. Many of them were standing, too; it was a horrendous situation. One could not imagine a school trip to Tintern abbey, which is in my Constituency and is down the road from Llandogo, on which pupils were allowed to sit or stand on such a bus. There would have to be risk assessments, but no such assessments were made in the case that I mentioned.

There was no obligation on the Health and Safety Executive to look into the matter. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to try to ensure, in the piloting of the new provisions, that a safeguard to ensure that the three-for-two rule is not implemented, and will not be taken advantage of by the commercial bus companies.

I had a mischievous thought when coming to Committee this morning. The prospectus, which I have only recently seen, says that there will be open evaluation of the pilots. I do not have the legal training that some of my hon. Friends have, but I am a social scientist, and am interested in evaluation, policy-related research and the ability to evaluate policy in order to improve it. I wondered there could be, as in a randomised control trial, one pilot in which we were insistent that the three-for-two rule would not be applied—say, a pilot in Burton that extended to near the River Trent—and another pilot that actually maximised the three-for-two rule. We could call that the Moorlands pilot; in that case, the bus would be allowed to carry an excessive number of children under the three-for-two rule. If those pilots were evaluated, I am sure that hon. Members and Ministers would think that the latter pilot was an appalling situation.

Would my hon. Friend agree that such pilots would help us to examine whether the increased costs involved in doing away with the three-for-two rule would be too great for some parents and lead to more cars being used on the roads? We must balance the need to promote safety on buses and to get rid of the three-for-two rule against the need not to increase the cost of school transport beyond the reach of local authorities or parents, thereby displacing people into cars, which could be even more dangerous.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and the pilots could demonstrate that.

Interestingly, the three-for-two rule was ended in 1996, but only for new vehicles with seat belts. Of course, the Minister has said, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member

for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) has told me on the Floor of the House, that the three-for-two rule will wither away. Well, I have to tell my hon. Friends that it will take a long time to wither away in my Constituency, because we never get new buses, only hand-me-down buses. That was the case even when Stagecoach was running the buses. In fact, it lost the contract to provide public transport in my constituency a couple of years ago. Another company now provides a reliable service, although the vehicles are dilapidated and do not really enhance the area, and I wish that they would be improved. It will be a long time before buses containing seat belts are operational throughout the country, and it will take a long time for the three-for-two rule to wither away on that basis.

I hope that I have made my point to the Minister. The three-for-two rule really is an anachronism and should be removed. We should not have such overcrowding, and I hope that we will see the end of it now.

I rise to speak for the first time in the Committee. I join the marvellous club of novices—someone unfairly called us amateurs—who are leading on the Bill. I am therefore particularly pleased that I am serving under the chairmanship of someone as experienced and as expert as you, Mr. O'Brien.

The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) asked about the limit of 20 on the number of pilots in England. We came up with the figure not out of favouritism or patronage, but to ensure that we struck the right balance. Having 20 pilots, rather than a very large number, will allow for enough variety between rural and urban schemes and between schemes promoting walking, cycling and bus use. It will allow us to test out different options for charging pupils and different ways of working with bus operators. Of course, we could have chosen a larger figure, but we could also have chosen a smaller one. However, these are pilots.

Surely the Government could have chosen no figure at all. If they had left matters open, they would not be fettering their discretion in the way that they seem to be doing.

We wanted to assess a certain number of pilots and we felt that it was sensible to have a figure. A huge number of authorities have shown an interest in the pilots, and the proposal has been very successful. We expect more authorities to come forward, and, if they do, we can increase the maximum number simply by amending the regulations. We have set the figure at 20, but we are quite happy to increase it should expressions of interest warrant that and should viable pilot schemes be proposed. The number is not a problem, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I hope that he will be satisfied with that response.

My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) has raised some important issues. In his Constituency and nationally, he has campaigned powerfully against the three-for-two allowance. He has

raised the issue's profile and argued his point persuasively. Indeed, he has become the acknowledged leader on the issue—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.